These slides were initially developed for a town hall webinar held - PDF document

These slides were initially developed for a town hall webinar held with Fellows and Past Presidents in May to provide details about the governance structure that has been under review and our path forward. It has been updated to reflect current status as of August 2016. The first few slides give an overview of the entire governance update process. Depending on the audience, you may want to spend more or less time on these. The last couple of slides provide the current status. 1

We have enjoyed tremendous success. • In just the past 10 years, membership has increased by 16,000 members (nearly doubled) and we’re now global. • In that same timeframe, conference attendance has nearly tripled. • We’ve added scores of virtual and face-to-face professional development training, expanded our K-12 programs, grown scholarships, and amplified our government relations and public policy efforts on the national stage. • The good news is that all the effort we’ve put in as Society leaders is paying off! 2

With the good news comes the recognition that we need to evolve. • All of the changes we just mentioned require more staff support and different volunteer leadership structures and opportunities. • We can and should be providing more meaningful and relevant leadership opportunities and training to our members. This is something SWE has always prided itself on offering since our founding 65 years ago. • We all know that society as a whole has changed, and continues to change even more rapidly. People no longer join associations or are willing to stay as members in an association for the same reasons they did years ago. • SWE’s current structure has become confusing and difficult to navigate. Recent discussions reveal this is true for both future and current leaders. This keeps members from participating and as a result many positions are going unfilled or filled by the same members year after year, resulting in volunteer burnout. • The reason people join SWE is not to complete reports, but rather to promote our mission of advancing women in engineering. We want to ensure that our governance structure promotes continuous growth of SWE, rather than inhibiting that growth. 3

• With this in mind, in FY15 the Board engaged with McKinley Consultants, who specializes in helping professional associations, to help determine the ideal governance structure and volunteer service model to support the organization’s growth and globalization goals and to maximize member engagement • McKinley reviewed available data and conducted in-depth interviews with SWE staff and both current and past volunteer leaders to measure perceptions. Participants included long-term SWE members (average tenure 20 years). There were also in-depth discussions with Senators and Region Governors. • They also conducted benchmarking to evaluate other organizations’ effective governance and engagement practices to the extent applicable. Organizations included IEEE, NSPE, American Institute of Architects, and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. We realize every organization is different, but we also realize there are things we can and should learn from other organizations. • Based on this information, McKinley proposed a number of recommendations to optimize SWE’s governance structure. For much of FY16 a group of senators, region governors, board members and longtime SWE members worked in subgroups, designed to represent multiple points of view. 4

• These groups focused on several areas using the McKinley recommendations as a guide. (More detail on all the McKinley recommendations can be found on the governance.swe.org web site under Q&As.) • All of the subgroups held multiple discussions including F2F meetings in Nashville and at Winter Senate meeting in Philadelphia, as well as regular calls • All of this collaborative discussion has allowed us to piece together a high level vision of what the future will look like, incorporating what we have heard works and what doesn’t work. That information has been captured in summary reports from each of the subgroups. These summary reports will be distributed to each member of the FY16 sub- groups. • A smaller Task Force has been created for FY17. The members are (with initial assignment): Andrea Clewley (Regions), Stephanie DeCotiis (Senate), Kerrie Greenfelder (Nom Com), Dayna Johnson (Committee), Alexis McKittrick (original TF), Helen Patricia (Bylaws), Sandra Pettit (Region), Heather Wiest (LCC Chair Elect), and Pearl Yamaguchi (Section), led by Penny Wirsing (original TF). • The sub-group recommendations will be the basis for the plan and timeline, but there will likely be adjustments made as the task force brings everything together. • We recognize that some of these changes will not please everyone. We ask that you have an open mind and, keeping in mind the case for change that we just outlined, that you help us identify challenges and issues that need to be addressed in order to make this a success. 5

• Board – remains the governing body of the Society, elected by the members with some appointed special directors; note that voting members will include collegiates • Strategic Body – may be called something other than Senate; made up of 15-20 members elected to longer terms to facilitate strategic planning focus • Regions – SWE currently has two different “middle” layers. One is geographic (regions), one is functional (committees). The future organizational vision simplifies our structure to a single middle layer. The functional approach of committees was chosen over the geographic approach of regions because we are a global organization and much of the work is already done virtually. Thus permanent geographic boundaries are to be dissolved, with current responsibilities redistributed to HQ or discontinued as appropriate. We recognize the underlying HQ/committee structure needs to be developed to support this change. • HQ – provides support, consistency; performs environmental scans to feed to the strategic planning process; they will do everything they do today, and more, to remove the “administrivia” responsibilities from our volunteers. This is supported by the feedback from the focus groups. 6

• Committees – The functional approach of committees was chosen over the geographic approach of regions because we are a global organization and much of the work is already done virtually. Committees will be strengthened to provide a strong leadership pipeline; to address concerns of checks and balances, key committee chairs will be elected by membership (Finance, Audit, Bylaws, Ethics, Nom Com) • Sections – looking to simplify section leadership structure and bylaws while maintaining SWE’s non-profit status. The Section formation process will be evaluated. (BOD just approved using “affiliates” in the US as used internationally, in place of CIGs). The Section Representative position, as known today, will no longer be needed. Looking to empower the local sections to share among themselves. • Bylaws – streamlined, with some items moved procedures as appropriate. We’re considering whether to have all members vote on bylaws changes in future • Collegiates – will be integrated throughout the Society, not just in specific positions, and will be voting members • There has been a question about membership levels – these won’t change though we are proposing to eliminate the “honorary” grade, which is no longer used. There are no changes to any other member grade, and the rumors of the Fellow grade being eliminated are incorrect. 7

• With the formal regional structure being dissolved, the services currently provided by the regions have been reviewed in detail. • We will maintain a volunteer “point of contact” for sections, supported by resources and SMEs, most likely through the committee structure, with flexibility in how these roles are organized so we can continually improve the process. • We want to strengthen training for our section leaders, focusing on skills that are applicable to both SWE and their careers. • We need to streamline and reinforce communication from the Society level to the section leadership to improve consistency across the organization • The new AMS will allow HQ staff to automate a number of processes that have previously been labor intensive, allowing them to focus more on some of these administrative details. Keep in mind the AMS is still going through various stages of rollout through calendar year 2016. • We recognize the need for robust communication between sections and society leadership , and we will continue to incorporate what we’re hearing works and doesn’t work 8